In cases of motor accident injuries to minors, compensation must be calculated based on the minimum wages of a skilled worker as of the date of the accident, and Appellate Courts are obligated to apply settled legal principles current at the time of the appeal, even if the lower court's award predates them.

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.12.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.273/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT & SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MULBAGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Though the matter is listed for Admission today, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for Hearing and Final Disposal today.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the injured appellant/claimant who was a minor before the Tribunal, seeking to challenge the Judgment and Award dated 22.12.2018, in MVC No.273/2016, passed by the MACT And Senior Civil Judge, Mulbagal, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Award’).

3. The brief admitted facts in this case are that the appellant/claimant was riding as a pillion rider alongwith his uncle on a motorcycle on 30.07.2016, at around 08.30 a.m., and when they reached near Srinivasa Kalyana Mantapa, Guniganti Palya Circle, at that time one JCB vehicle bearing registration No.KA-07/M-6581, collided with the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, the minor sustained injuries, which led to the filing of the claim petition.

4. The claim petition was contested by the owner of the JCB, as well as by its insurer i.e., respondent no. 2. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:

“1. Whether the petitioner proves that the accident occurred on 30-07-2016 at 8-30 a.m. in front of Srinivasa Kalyana Mantapa, Guniganti Palya, Mulbagal Town is due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of JCB vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-07-M-6581 due to which he has sustained grievous injuries?

2. Whether the Respondent No.2 proves that the drivers of JCB vehicle bearing No.ΚΑ-07-M-6581 and the motor cycle bearing No.KA-07-S-7173 do not possess valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?

4. What order or award?”

5. To substantiate the case, the father of the minor i.e., appellant/claimant was examined as PW1 and documents were marked. The Doctor who treated the appellant/claimant was examined as PW2 and he also gave his evidence qua Exhibit-P10 to P13.

6. The learned Tribunal found that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver/owner. In addition, the learned Tribunal after examining the evidence placed before it and relying on the judgment in the case of Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Limited ¹1 2014 (14) SCC 396 and finding that the disability was 13% awarded a Global Compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and the compensation under the following heads:

7. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the appeal is a continuation of the proceedings before the learned Tribunal and that in view of the recent Judgments, the law in Master Mallikarjun case is no longer good law. He s